Comrades, the resolution which I have the honor to propose to your attention on behalf of the social-democratic fraction of the peasant Soviet has been printed and distributed to delegates. If not everyone has received it, we will take measures to ensure that additional copies are printed tomorrow for distribution to all who wish them.

In a brief report, I can of course dwell only on the main, fundamental questions, those of greatest interest to the peasantry and the working class. Those interested in the question in more detail, I would recommend reading the resolution of our party, the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party (Bolsheviks), published as an appendix to No. 13 of the newspaper *Soldatskaya Pravda* and explained repeatedly in our newspaper *Pravda*{76}. For now I must confine myself to clarifying the most important, most controversial, or most frequently misunderstood points of my resolution and our party program on the agrarian question. One of the first such controversial or misunderstood points is the question that was touched upon yesterday or the day before in the Main Land Committee{77} at a session of which you have probably all heard or read in yesterday's or the day before yesterday's newspapers. At the session of the Main Land Committee, one of our party's representatives, my fellow member of the Central Committee, Comrade Smilga, was present. He put forward a proposal that the Main Land Committee should declare itself in favor of the immediate, organized seizure of landowner estates by the peasantry, and for this proposal Comrade Smilga came under a whole barrage of objections. (Voice: "And here as well.") I am told that here too many comrades will come out against this proposal. All the more reason, therefore, for me to dwell on clarifying this point of our program, for it seems to me that the majority—indeed, I think all—of the objections that are raised against our program are based on misunderstanding or on an incorrect presentation of our views.

What do all the resolutions of our party, all articles in our organ, our newspaper *Pravda*, say? We say that land must pass entirely and without exception into the possession of all the people. We arrived at this conclusion on the basis of studying, in particular, the peasant movement of 1905, the declarations of peasant deputies in the First and Second State Duma{78}, where comparatively freely—comparatively, of course—many peasant deputies from all corners of Russia could express themselves.

All land must be the possession of all the people. From this it already follows that in defending the immediate and free transfer of landowner estates into the hands of local peasants, we are in no way defending the seizure of these lands into private property, we are in no way defending the division of these lands. We assume that land must be taken under one harvest by local peasantry by decision adopted by a majority of local peasant delegates. We in no way defend the notion that this land should become the property of those peasants who are now taking it for one harvest. All such objections, which I have constantly had to hear and encounter in the pages of capitalist newspapers, against our proposal, are based directly on an incorrect interpretation of our views. Since we have said—and I repeat: we have said this in all our resolutions—that land must be the possession of all the people and pass to it free of charge—then it is clear that the establishment of the final distribution of this land, the final establishment of land arrangements, must be carried out only by the central state authority, that is, by the Constituent Assembly or the All-Russian Soviet of Soviets, should the peasant and working masses create such an authority, such a Soviet of Soviets. On this account there are no disagreements whatsoever.

Disagreements begin further on when our opponents argue and say: "if that is so, then any immediate free transfer of landowner estates into the hands of the peasantry will be arbitrary action." It is this view, which was stated most accurately, most authoritatively, and with greatest weight by the Minister of Agriculture Shingarev in his well-known telegram, that we regard as most erroneous, disadvantageous for the peasantry, disadvantageous for agriculturalists, disadvantageous for ensuring the country has bread, and unjust. This telegram I permit myself to read in order to show against what we direct most of our objections.

"Independent resolution of the land question is inadmissible without a general state law. Arbitrary action will lead to state disaster… the resolution of the land question by law is the business of the Constituent Assembly. At present, conciliation agricultural chambers have been formed on the local level by agriculturalists and landowners at the volost food supply committees."

Here is the basic passage from the government's statement on this question. If you familiarize yourselves with the resolution adopted yesterday or the day before by the Main Land Committee on this question{79}, with the resolution also recently adopted at a conference of members of the State Duma{80}, you will see that the two mentioned resolutions proceed from the same view. They accuse those peasants who desire to implement the immediate and free transfer of land into peasant hands and distribute it through local peasant committees of arbitrary action, proceeding from the notion that only voluntary agreement between peasants and landowners, between agriculturalists and landowners, could supposedly correspond to general state needs and interests. It is precisely this that we deny, and this is what we dispute.

Cover of the brochure "Lenin's Speech on the Agrarian Question," published by the Smolensk Committee of the RSDLP(b). – 1917. (Reduced)

Let us examine these objections that are raised against our proposal. Typically the objections consist in the argument that land in Russia is distributed extremely unevenly both among small units like villages and volosts, and among large units such as provinces and regions. And they say that if the local population, by majority vote, without regard for the will of the landowners, took land into its own hands and moreover free of charge, then the unevenness would remain or there would even be a danger of its consolidation. We answer that such an argument is based on a misunderstanding. The inequality in land distribution will in any case remain until the Constituent Assembly, or the central state authority in general, establishes a new order definitively. Until this order is established—one way or another, whether in peasant fashion or in landowner fashion, whether as we wish with the immediate transfer of land into peasant hands, or as the landowners wish, who are prepared to rent out land at high rates, on condition that the peasant tenant and the landowner retain their rights, whether this way or another—the uneven distribution remains. This objection against us is clearly incorrect and unjust. We speak of the necessity of creating as quickly as possible a central state authority, not only relying on the will and decisions of the peasant majority, but directly expressing the opinion of this majority. On this account there is no dispute. If we hear objections against the Bolsheviks, attacks from capitalist newspapers, claims that we are anarchists, we categorically reject this and regard these attacks as the dissemination of malicious lies and slander.

Anarchists are called those who deny the necessity of state power, while we say that it is absolutely essential, not only for Russia now, but for any state, even one directly transitioning to socialism. An absolutely firm power is essential. We only want this power to be entirely and exclusively in the hands of the majority of workers', soldiers', and peasants' deputies. That is what distinguishes us from other parties. We in no way deny the necessity of firm state power; we only say that all landowner land must pass free of charge into peasant hands by decision of the local peasant committee adopted by a majority, on the condition that there is no damage to property. This is indicated in our resolution with utmost precision. We categorically reject objections against our view that this is arbitrary action.

No, in our view, if landowners retain land for their own benefit or exact payment for it, that is arbitrary action, but if the majority of the peasantry says that landowner land should not remain with the landowner, that the peasantry has seen nothing from these landowners, from these landholders, for many dozens of years, for centuries, except oppression, this is not arbitrary action, this is the restoration of justice, and the restoration of justice cannot be delayed. If we carry out the transfer of land to the peasants now, we cannot eliminate the unevenness between regions—that is indisputable, but no one will eliminate this unevenness until the Constituent Assembly has convened. And at present Shingarev, who objects to us and in official documents curses supporters of our views for "arbitrary action," if one asked him what he proposes against this unevenness, could give no answer. He proposes nothing and can propose nothing.

He says—"voluntary agreement between peasants and landowners." What does this mean? I will cite two basic figures concerning landownership in European Russia. These figures show that at one end of the Russian village stand the wealthiest landowners, including the Romanovs, the wealthiest and worst landowners, and at the other end—the poorest peasants. I will cite two figures so you can see what significance this sermon from Shingarev, from all landowners and capitalists, has. Here are these two figures: if we take the wealthiest landowners of all European Russia, it turns out that the largest landowners, numbering fewer than 30,000 persons, possess some 70 million desyatinas of land. This means more than 2,000 desyatinas per person. If we take the wealthiest layers of wealthy Russian landowners, regardless of estate status (the majority here are nobles, but there are also other landowners), there are 30,000 of them, and they have 70 million desyatinas! But if we take the poorest peasantry according to the same 1905 census, which provides the latest information gathered uniformly throughout Russia—information which does not deserve great confidence by its very nature, like all statistics gathered under the tsar by tsarist officials, but nonetheless provides the most accurate, the most comparable data—if we take the poorest peasantry, we get 10 million households and they have some 70–75 million desyatinas of land. This means: one has over 2,000 desyatinas, while the other has 7.5 desyatinas per household! And they say it will be arbitrary action if peasants do not agree to voluntary agreement. What does this "voluntary agreement" mean? It means that landowners might perhaps yield land for good rental payment, but will not give it to anyone free of charge. Is this just? No, it is not just. Is this advantageous for the peasant population? No, it is not advantageous. How the final land property will be established is a matter for future central authority, but right now immediately landowner land without redemption must pass into peasant hands on condition of organized seizure. Minister Chernov in the Main Land Committee, objecting to my comrade Smilga, said that "organized seizure" consists of two words that negate each other: if seizure, then it must be disorganized, but if organized, then it is not seizure. I think this criticism is incorrect. I think that if the peasantry adopts a decision by majority in a village or volost, in a district, in a province—and in some provinces, if not all, peasant congresses have established local authority representing the interests and will of the majority, authority representing the will of the population, that is, of the majority of agriculturalists—once such authority has been created locally, its decision is the decision of that authority which the peasant population will recognize. This is the authority toward which the peasant population locally cannot fail to show full respect, for there is no doubt that this freely elected authority decrees that landowner land must immediately pass into peasant hands. Let the peasant know that he is taking landowner land; let him, if he pays, pay into peasant, district funds; let him know that this money will go toward improving agriculture, toward roads, bridges and the like. Let him know that he is taking not his own land, but neither the landowner's, but the people's land, which the Constituent Assembly will ultimately dispose of. Therefore, no landowner rights to land should exist from the very beginning of the revolution, from the moment of establishing the first land committee, and no monetary exactions for this land should be made.

Between us and our opponents the fundamental contradiction lies in our understanding of what order and law are. Until now people have looked upon it as if order and law are what suits landowners and bureaucrats, while we assert that order and law are what suits the majority of the peasantry. And until there is an All-Russian Soviet of Soviets, until there is a Constituent Assembly, until then every local authority—district committees, provincial committees—this is the highest order and law! We call arbitrary action that which occurs when one landowner, on the basis of old centuries-old rights, demands "voluntary" agreement with three hundred peasant families, each of which has on average 7.5 desyatinas! We say: "let decisions be adopted by majority; we want so that right now, without losing a single month, a single week, a single day, the peasants receive landowner lands!"

We are objected to with: "surely if peasants now begin seizing land, then perhaps it will be seized by the richer ones, those who have livestock, implements and the like; therefore will this not be dangerous from the point of view precisely of the poorest peasantry?" Comrades, I must dwell on this argument, because our party, in all our decisions, programs, and appeals to the people, declares: "we are the party of wage laborers and the poorest peasants; their interests we desire to protect; through them and only through them, through these classes, can humanity escape from the horrors into which this capitalist war has plunged it."

Therefore to such objections, that our decisions turn out to be at odds with the interests of the poorest peasants, to such objections we pay very careful attention and invite you to examine them especially carefully, for these objections touch on the very essence of the matter, the very root of the question. For the very essence of the matter consists in this: how can the interests of wage laborers, urban and rural, the interests of the poorest peasants be defended in the ongoing revolution, in the ongoing state transformation of Russia, how can and should their interests be defended against the interests of landowners or wealthy peasants—those same capitalists. Of course, this is the crux of the question, its entire essence! And so we are objected to with: if you recommend to peasants immediate seizure, then those who have implements and livestock will seize first of all, while the poor will be left with nothing. I ask you: will voluntary agreement with landowners help?

You know perfectly well that landowners are reluctant to rent land to peasants who have not a kopeck in their pockets, and, on the contrary, resort to "voluntary" agreements when good payment is promised. For free landowners have not been giving out their land; as though in Russia no one has noticed this.

If we speak of voluntary agreement with landowners, this means much more to strengthen, increase, solidify the privileged, preferential position, the advantages that wealthy peasants enjoy, because wealthy peasants can surely pay landowners, and for any landowner a wealthy peasant is a solvent person. The landowner knows that he can pay and money can be exacted from him, and therefore in such "voluntary" dealings with landowners it is precisely the wealthy peasants who gain more than the poor. Conversely, if there is a possibility to render aid right away to poor peasantry, then only through such a measure as I propose, namely: land must immediately and free of charge pass to the peasants.

Landowner property was and remains the greatest injustice. Free possession by peasants of this land, if this possession is by majority, is not arbitrary action, but the restoration of justice. That is our point of view, and that is why we consider the argument that from this the poorest peasantry will lose to be a crying injustice. "Voluntary" agreement is what—only Shingarev can call this "voluntary" agreement—if one landowner has 2,000 desyatinas while 300 peasants have 7.5 desyatinas on average. To call this agreement voluntary is to mock the peasant. This is not voluntary agreement, but forced for the peasantry, forced until such time as by each peasant volost, provincial, district, and All-Russian Soviet it is declared that landowner property is a great injustice, the abolition of which cannot be delayed by an hour or a minute.

Property in land must be the property of all the people, and it must be established by state authority. Until it convenes, the local authorities—and I repeat once more—take the landowner land, and they must do this by organized majority. It is a lie if newspapers cry out that chaos reigns in Russia! It is a lie; in the countryside there is more order than before, because decisions are made by majority; there has been almost no violence against landowners; instances of injustice and violence against landowners are completely isolated; they are insignificant and do not exceed for all Russia the number of cases of violence that occurred before.

Now I will touch on another argument which I have had to hear and discuss in our newspaper *Pravda* in connection with the immediate transfer of lands into peasant hands[11].

This argument consists in the claim that if peasants are recommended to take landowner land into their hands immediately and free of charge, this will cause discontent, irritation, anxiety, and perhaps even indignation among soldiers at the front, who might say: "if peasants now seize land, while we must stand at the front, then we will be left without land." Perhaps soldiers would all move from the front and chaos and anarchy would result. To this we answer in the following way: this objection does not concern the fundamental question at all: whether land is taken for payment, by agreement with landowners, or by decision of the peasant majority, soldiers remain at the front as long as war lasts, and of course they will remain at the front and cannot return to the village. Why then should soldiers at the front not fear that landowners, under the guise of voluntary agreement, will impose unfavorable conditions? Why should they fear that the peasantry will decide by majority against landowners? It is incomprehensible! Why should a soldier at the front place trust in a landowner, in "voluntary" agreement with a landowner? I understand when parties of landowners and capitalists say this, but that a Russian soldier at the front would look at it this way, I do not believe. If there is "voluntary" agreement with a landowner, a soldier will not call this order, will not place confidence in this, he will more likely look at it as the old landowner disorder continuing.

A soldier will place more confidence in it if told: land passes to the people; local peasants rent it and for rent pay not to the landowner but contribute to their own committee for public needs, to the same soldier's front, but not to the landowner. If this is decided by majority, then the soldier at the front will learn that no longer can there be any "voluntary" agreements with landowners, that landowners are the same equal citizens whom no one wishes to wrong. Land is for all people—meaning it belongs to the landowner too, but not on the basis of noble privileges, but as to any citizen. No privileges should exist from those days when tsarist power, the power of the tsar who was the largest landowner and oppressor of the masses, was overthrown. With the establishment of freedom, landowner power should be considered overthrown once and for all. From this view the soldier at the front will lose nothing; on the contrary, he will have much greater confidence in state authority and calm assurance about home, that his family will not be left wronged or homeless.

There remains one more argument which has been raised against our proposal. This argument consists in the claim that if peasants immediately seized landowner land, then such immediate, insufficiently prepared seizure might perhaps lead to worsening of land cultivation, perhaps the sowing would be worse. I must say that the authority of the majority, general state authority, has not yet been created, peasants have not yet gained sufficient confidence in themselves and have not lost confidence in landowners and capitalists; I think that with each day we are moving closer to this, with each day the peasantry is losing confidence in the old state authority and is coming to understand that the government of Russia must be that of peasant, soldier, worker, and other elected representatives and no one else; I think each day brings us closer to this time, not because some parties advise this: millions of people will never listen to the advice of parties if this advice does not coincide with what their own life experience teaches them. We are approaching rapidly the time when Russia will have no authority except the authority of peasant and worker elected representatives. And when I am told that perhaps immediate seizure of lands will lead to the land being poorly worked, the sowing being poor, then I must say that with our peasants, owing to their oppression, owing to centuries of oppression by landowners, the cultivation is very poor. Of course, Russia is in a terrible crisis, which has struck it like all warring countries, and Russia cannot be saved unless it transitions to better cultivation, to the greatest economy of human labor. But can "voluntary" agreement with landowners change anything for the first sowing right now? What is it? Will landowners better oversee the cultivation of land, will peasants worse sow the land if they know they are sowing not on landowner land but on the people's land? What if they pay not to the landowner but into their own peasant funds? This is such nonsense that I am astonished when I hear such arguments; this is completely incredible and entirely represents a trick of the landowners.

The landowners understood that they can no longer rule by the stick; this they have understood well, and they are transitioning to that method of rule which is new for Russia but has long existed in Western Europe, in Western European countries. That rule by the stick is no longer possible was shown us by two revolutions, and in Western European countries it was shown by dozens of revolutions. These revolutions educate landowners and capitalists; they teach them that the people must be ruled by deceit, by flattery; they must adapt, pin a red badge to their jackets and, though they may be bloodsuckers, say: "We are revolutionary democracy, please only wait and we will do everything for you." Such an argument—that peasants will worse sow land now if they are sowing not on landowner land but on the people's land—is precisely mockery of peasants, an attempt to preserve rule over them by deceit.

I repeat, there should be no landowner property at all; possession is not property, possession is a temporary measure and possession changes each year. A peasant who rents a plot of land must not dare consider that the land is his. The land is neither his nor the landowner's, but the people's. I repeat that this cannot worsen the sowing of fields this year, this spring. This supposition is so monstrous and incredible that I say to you only this: beware of landowners, do not trust them, do not let yourselves be deceived by honeyed words and promises. You must remember that the decision of the peasant majority, who in their decisions are quite cautious, is a lawful and general state decision. In this regard you can rely on peasants. For example, I have the decision of Penza peasants, which from first point to last is pervaded by extraordinary caution: peasants are not launching any immediate transformation for all Russia, but they do not want to herd themselves into unbearable bondage, and in this they are right. The greatest bondage was and remains landowner bondage, the bondage of landholders and oppressors. And therefore one cannot wait even a week, even an hour with the elimination of this bondage, but every seizure must be an organized seizure, not into private property, not into division, but only into common use of land that is the people's.

I could conclude this question of seizure by answering in this way: that the objections against our proposal are based, on the part of landowners and capitalists, on deceit, and on the part of non-landowners, non-capitalists, on the part of people who wish to defend the interests of the laboring masses, are based on misunderstanding, on excessive confidence in what capitalists and landowners falsely say against us. If you examine our arguments, it turns out that the just demand for the elimination of landowner property immediately, just as the transition of land property to the people, cannot be implemented until the central state authority convenes, but the transition of possession of land to the peasants themselves right away, on the spot, we most urgently advise, so that not the slightest violation of order is permitted. We give this advice in our resolutions, and perhaps this advice is unnecessary, because even without it peasants are carrying this out in practice.

I will move to the second question, on which most attention must be focused: what is desirable for us and what is in the interests of the laboring masses in how we should deal with land once it becomes the property of all the people, once private property is eliminated. This hour is very near in Russia. In fact, if the power of landowners has not been destroyed, it has been undermined. When land comes into the possession of all peasants, when there are no more landowners, what then? How should we distribute the land? On this question, it seems to me, it is necessary to establish some general view, a fundamental view, because of course local administration will always remain with the peasantry. In a democratic state it cannot be otherwise; this is so clear that there is no need to speak of it. But when the question arises of how to ensure that land falls to the laboring masses, we say: we want to defend the interests of wage laborers and the poorest peasants. This our party of Russian Social-Democratic Bolsheviks considers its task. We ask ourselves: if we say that land will pass to the people, is this the same as saying that land will pass to the laboring masses? And we answer: no, it is not the same! If we say that land will pass to the people, this means that landowner property will be eliminated; this means that all land belongs to all the people; this means—anyone who takes land takes it as a lease from all the people. If this order is established, this means—no difference in land possession will remain, all land is equal, as peasants often say: "all old barriers, all divisions of land will fall, the land will be opened up: there will be free land and free labor."

Does this mean that land passes to all the laboring masses? No, it does not. Free labor on free land—this means that all old forms of land possession are done away with, there is no land possession except general state ownership; everyone takes land as a lease from the state; there is state general authority, the authority of all workers and peasants; from this authority one peasant takes land as a tenant; between state and peasant there are no intermediaries; everyone takes on equal terms; this is free labor on free land.

Does this mean that land passes to all the laboring masses? No, it does not. One cannot eat land; to conduct agriculture one must have implements, livestock, equipment, money; without money, without implements one cannot conduct agriculture. Therefore, when you establish such an order that there will be free labor on free land, no landowner land possession, no gradations on the land{81}, but only general people's property and free tenants of land from the whole state. When you establish this, this is not the transition of land to all the laboring masses; this means only that each householder will freely dispose of land; whoever wants can freely take general state land. This will be a big step forward compared to tsarist, landowner Russia. This will be a big step forward because tsarist, landowner Russia was a Russia in which 70,000,000 desyatinas were given to 30,000 Markovs, Romanovs and such landowners; this will be such a Russia in which there will be free labor on free land. Already now this has been done in many places. Russia has already taken a step forward from tsarist, landowner Russia, but this is not the transition of land to the laboring masses; this is the transition of land to the proprietor, because if land is general state ownership and it will be taken by those who want to conduct agriculture on it, this is not enough; merely wishing to conduct agriculture is not enough; one also needs skill, but skill is not enough. Every day laborer and hired hand has skill; what he lacks is livestock, implements, capital, and therefore, however much you may decree, however much you may say, thereby we will not establish free labor on free land. If we even hung signs in every volost administration about free land, this would not improve the situation for the laboring masses, just as in Western European republics, where signs on prisons read "freedom, equality, brotherhood," prisons do not cease being prisons. If you write the words "freedom, equality, brotherhood" on a factory, as in America, the factory does not cease being penal servitude for workers and paradise for capitalists.

This means we must now think about what comes next, how to achieve not only free labor—this is a step forward, but this is still not a step to protect the interests of the laboring masses; this is a step to liberation from landowner rapacity, from exploitation by landowners, liberation from Markovs, from the police and the like, but this is not a step to protect the interests of the laboring masses, because without livestock, without implements, without capital a poor, destitute peasant cannot manage land. This is why I regard with great distrust the question of the so-called two measures or two norms—the labor norm and the subsistence norm. I know that in populist parties there are always discussions and explanations of these norms. I know that these parties stand on the point of view of the necessity of establishing these two norms—these two measures: the labor norm, the amount of land that a family cannot work more than, and the subsistence norm, the amount of land less than which would mean starvation. I say that I regard this question of norms or measures with great distrust and think that this is a bureaucratic plan, from which there will be no benefit, which cannot enter life, even if you resolve to establish this plan here. That is the whole point! This plan cannot provide any noticeable relief to the position of wage laborers and the poorest peasants; this plan, even if you recognize it, will remain on paper as long as capitalism prevails. This plan does not help us find the correct path for the transition from capitalism to socialism.

When they speak of these two measures, these two norms, they imagine the matter as if only land and citizens exist, as if nothing else existed in the world. If that were so, this plan would be good. But the matter is not so: there exists the power of capital, the power of money; without money on the most free land, under any "measures" of economy, there can be no agriculture, because as long as money remains—wage labor remains. And this means that wealthy peasants, and there are no fewer than a million families of them in Russia, will oppress and exploit wage laborers and will continue to oppress them on the "free" land. These wealthy peasants constantly, not as an exception but as a general rule, resort to hiring laborers, annual, seasonal, daily—that is, to the exploitation of the poorest peasants, the proletariat. And alongside this there exist millions and millions of peasants without horses, who cannot exist without selling their labor power, without turning to seasonal work, and so on. As long as the power of money remains, as long as the power of capital remains, whatever "norms" you establish, they will remain at best unsuitable for life because they do not take into account the main fact—that property in implements, in livestock, in money is distributed unevenly; they do not take into account that there exists wage labor which is subject to exploitation. This is the fundamental fact of present-day Russian life; it cannot be bypassed, and if we establish any "measures," life will bypass them, and the "measures" will remain on paper. That is why, in order to defend the interests of destitute and poorest peasants in this greatest transformation of Russia which you are now undertaking and which you will undoubtedly undertake when private land property is eliminated, when a step forward is taken toward the approach of a better future, a socialist future; in order that in this great transformation which you have only just begun, which will go far forward and which, one can say without exaggeration, will undoubtedly be carried out in Russia because no force exists that could prevent it; in order to defend the interests of workers and poorest peasants, one cannot go the path of establishing norms or measures; one must seek another path.

I and my party comrades, speaking on behalf of whom I have the honor to speak, we know only two such paths for defending the interests of agricultural wage laborers and poorest peasants, and we recommend these two paths to the attention of the peasant Soviet.

The first path is the organization of agricultural wage laborers and poorest peasants. We want and advise that in each peasant committee, in each volost, district, province, there be formed a separate faction or separate group of agricultural wage laborers and poorest peasants, such as would ask themselves: if tomorrow land becomes the property of all people—and it will undoubtedly become so because the people wish it—what is to become of us? We who have no livestock, implements, where will we get them? How will we conduct agriculture? How are we to defend our interests? How should we ensure that the land, which will be all the people's, which will truly be all the people's, does not fall into the hands only of proprietors? If it falls into the hands of those who have sufficient livestock and implements, will we have gained much? Was this the point of our great revolution? Did we need this?

Land will be "the people's," but this is not enough to protect the interests of agricultural wage laborers. The fundamental path does not consist in the fact that the peasant committee will establish a "measure" for individual land possession from above or from here. These measures will not help while capital prevails, and these measures will not lead us out of the domination of capitalism. In order to escape the yoke of capitalism, in order for the land of the people to pass into the hands of the laboring masses—there is only one fundamental path: this is the path of organization of agricultural wage laborers, who will be guided by their experience, by their observations, by their distrust of what bloodsuckers tell them, even though they appear with red ribbons and call themselves "revolutionary democracy."

Only independent organization on the spot, only teaching by one's own experience will educate the poorest peasants. And this experience will not be easy; we cannot promise and do not promise that milk rivers will flow and kissel banks will appear. No, landowners will be overthrown because the people wish it, but capitalism remains. It is much harder to overthrow; the overthrow of capitalism leads by another path. This is the path of independent, separate organizations of agricultural wage laborers and poorest peasants. This is what our party puts forward above all.

Only from this path can we expect gradual, difficult, but sure transition of land truly into the hands of the laboring masses.

The second step which our party recommends consists in the following: from each large enterprise, from each, for example, large landowner economy, of which there are 30,000 in Russia, there should be formed, as quickly as possible, model farms for common cultivation conducted jointly with agricultural laborers and learned agronomists, using for this purpose the landowner's livestock, implements and the like. Without this common cultivation under the guidance of Councils of agricultural laborers, the land will not belong to the laboring masses. Of course, common cultivation is a difficult thing; of course, if anyone imagined that such common cultivation could be imposed from above and forced upon people, this would be madness, because century-old habit of individual farms cannot disappear at once, because this requires money, requires adaptation to new forms of life. If these councils, this opinion regarding common cultivation, common implements, common livestock with the best use